> The common law derives from the medieval !Anglosaxon! feudal law, which is based on contracts, agreements, negotiations and precedents
This is the !very first! statement of the opening paragraph of my comment. Why are you saying that I have not said it. Have you not read the actual comment?
> Why would they exist conceptually if they're not relied upon?
Why would they be relied upon if they exist, even further, why would they be the basis of the actual law?
In civil law, the law always supersedes anything else, including any agreement that any party makes among themselves. The agreements, contracts that parties makes in between themselves cannot affect the law and its decrees in any way, and actually any contract itself must be made precisely as how the law outlines them to be made and what permits them to have. To put it in historic terms, in civil law contracts exist because the law says they can exist and tells precisely how will they exist and to what extent, whereas in common law the contractual agreements that the parties made among themselves all the way going back to Magna Carta are the basis of the entire body of law - with Magna Carta being a contractual agreement in itself.
I will respond to that comment here because HN rate limits me, making any productive discussion totally infeasible, which is why I almost totally stopped participating on this platform. Seeing how it makes actual discussions impossible, I should altogether stop participating here. But here goes the reply:
> the paper probably isn't what you were hoping for.
The term exists, its an important term in history, political science, diplomacy for a very long while, the very Cambridge university uses it itself. At this point you should be aware that even you would be able to find many references using the term. So dont sweat it. The rest of the world is not going to stop using it just because you people have a beef with some country that uses it.
...
At this point, seeing that you have claimed that I said various things I have not said and also claimed that I didnt say things that are the very first things that I said, I have no other option but to conclude that you are an insincere debater. Which concludes our discussion since I will spare both of us of a potential unproductive discussion by disengaging...
> That's neat, the dead are welcome to their opinions. That doesn't change where or why it's used primarily by certain parties in their English facing media.
How does this justify removing an actual historic term from the vocabulary.
> But it clearly has a different meaning in English.
It doesnt:
> I'll admit error if you can find a source, that's not Russian
It amazes me how someone that claims any insight in the matters of law can ask for 'sources' for such a thing. It just feels crazy. Here you go:
Its not about the law, its not about the history, its the actual term used in an Anglosaxon source about how French saw the !rise of Anglosaxons! in 20th century.
This paper of the actual university of Cambridge is actually named "The Rise of the Anglo-Saxon: French Perceptions of the Anglo-American World in the Long Twentieth Century". It is the Anglosaxons using the actual scientific term to refer to the actual historic and political science concept.
> The problem is I'm having a hard time finding one on my own.
Thats amazing now. The above was the first google result for me, an avid student of history. You were unable to find anything maybe its because you dont have much interest in that direction. Or, more likely, you were totally inundated with the actual propaganda war that very Anglosaxon establishment is waging against the actual historic term just because its current enemy used it to describe, well, itself...
This does sound like insincere debate. Where does in my comments it says that contracts dont exist in civil law. It says civil law is not BASED on contracts, agreeements and precedents. The common law is.
And no, the complications that are so beautifully and 'respectably' named in the common law dont exist in civil law. The law is always clear - if something is not covered by an immediate law, it is covered by a broader law that affects those cases.
Nowhere in my comment it says that criminals in other countries do not lie. Or the admission of guild is not considered evidence. It clearly outlines the differences in the legal systems and how the competent criminals navigate the former. If Binance people had any experience, they would be talking by using well rounded and vague words even among each other like how any exec in the US does, and they would avoid providing any such evidence. Moreover, they would easily be able to claim ignorance and deny any wrongdoing.
Long standing in history, long standing in diplomacy, long standing in actual freaking Louis XIV administration communique, long standing in practically everything.
No offense but just because you people have a beef with Russia at the moment and they are using the term, the rest of the world is not going to change how they speak so that you dont get offended.
> I don't think I've seen an authoritative source elsewhere use it
The 'Anglosaxon' term is a long-standing political science, history and diplomacy term. Its not something that can be ignored, especially because...
> none of this is unique conceptually to US law
... it is.
The common law derives from the medieval !Anglosaxon! feudal law, which is based on contracts, agreements, negotiations and precedents. It can be 'interpreted' by the judge, who takes on the role of the feudal lord of the earlier times, and he or she can 'interpret' the law or precedents. The persecution or the defendant can negotiate any outcome. This trait of the common law system causes all the parties to open the 'bargain' from the maximum bets that they can imagine, assuming that it will be 'negotiated down' eventually. Which obligates the need for lying and denying that was mentioned earlier - if you deny any kind of wrongdoing even when caught red handed, you have a better chance of negotiating something better than if you were honest. The only sizable countries that use this law system are the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ if you count as sizable. Along with a number of smaller island states.
The ENTIRE rest of the world uses the civil law system that descended from the Napoleonic law, which descended in turn from the French Revolutionary principles. It does not rely on agreements, contracts, negotiations or precedents. It cannot be 'interpreted' The law is made by the democratic parliamentary authority and it clearly outlines crimes and punishments and there can be no negotiation made. Even the reductions in sentencing or the modifications that can be done to the final decision on anything are clearly outlined. Including the benefits that confessing a crime brings. Whereas lying is penalized further. There is no 'negotiation' that can be done in any way. That is why civil law encourages confessions and telling the truth in contrast to the common law which allows you to negotiate.
Which is also the reason why the lawyers get upper middle class salaries and income in entire rest of the world but make obscene, irrational income in the US - when the legal system allows outrageous decisions, reparations, sentences that can only be negotiated through professional lying, posturing, playing down or up, personal relations in between the lawyers, prosecutors and judges, it encourages the mess that one can see in the US to happen.
In Europe, judges and lawyers and prosecutors function more like clerks - the law is clear and solid. The rewards and punishments are the same. Has someone done what he or she shouldnt have done? Yes. What is the penalty for this? This particular thing. That is applied. There is no 'negotiation' anywhere in the process.
This difference not only makes the Anglosaxon legal system quite different from entire rest of the world, but it also causes the social, economic and political life in the Angloamerican world and the rest of the world to be very different. A corporation can get away with destroying the environment or killing hundreds of thousands people with their product or the new drug. Even if they know beforehand what will happen and start to repress information and bribe experts to lie on their behalf to sell their product. Because, when they get caught, what will happen will be an eventual negotiation. In the rest of the world that does not happen - there is no way to negotiate down any sentence that may befall on your corporation, but most importantly, you, the perpetrator...
No, the criminals are extremely smart. Its just that these were amateurs who didnt know that in Anglosaxon common law, you have to avoid being honest about anything and even deny any wrongdoing even if you get caught the act of murdering someone. Then you can exercise plausible deniability, claim incompetence or mental incapacity and you can negotiate your sentence. Any kind of honesty works against you in the US law as a result. That's how you end up with people who are total experts in their field testifying in courts that they "didnt know" that something they did would cause so much harm to something or somebody or the society.
As of this very moment, thousands of much, much bigger corporations are actually destroying the entire US society in a real way and not like these amateurs who were just shuffling some funny money. But the real psychos know how common law works. There wont be any trail of their wrongdoing, and when there is, there will always be plausible deniability in that trail...
And it wont work until California can stop what is called 'The Greyhound Express'. That's what some people in other states call the practice that some states have - offering their homeless a one way ticket to California or jail. They export their problem to California, and they criticize California for it.
That doesn't make a difference. With most of the stuff, images will only be pulled when they are not locally present or stale. Ie pull if not present in K8. So doesnt make any difference.
Ok. Docker is also a convenient container registry. And its independent of ALL of those infrastructures so if i cancel any of them or move elsewhere, Im still good. So why should I not pay for Docker?
> There are things Chomsky might be able to convince me of, but effects preceding their causes isn’t among them.
Sorry. Kennedy administration says otherwise in their internal memos released to the public via FOIA requests. This may not fit the worldview that you constructed in your head, but reality is what it is. In between what the Kennedy admn. itself says and your 'interpretations', I'll go with the former. Thanks.
> The reason why healthcare is expensive is because of regulatory gatekeeping which prevents new players from outcompeting incumbents
Look. In ENTIRE world except the US, that is not happening. There are far more regulations everywhere else. They also regulate prices. They work. Looking at the situation, only one of the below possibilities can be true at any given time:
1 - The US exists in a totally different space/time continuum in which what you say is true
2 - The US exists in the same continuum with the rest of the planet, and you people are being totally scammed
It was literally developed by socialists (in late 19th century it meant the same with 'communist') and advocated in the First Socialist International at the end of 19th century. To top that, it was the president of the first socialist international who revealed the new system. Every single plan and method that you equate with 'capitalism' above, comes from that advocacy.
In the cold war era when Western countries were also using social democracy, the cold war propaganda allowed people to get self-deceived into thinking that all of those were the fruits of capitalism. But Reagan & co knew what was what. They spent no time in discarding all those pesky socialist practices and bringing back good old fashioned capitalism. The dystopian hellhole that you are experiencing today is capitalism itself.
Well, obviously there is still some ways to go until child labor, 14 hour workdays, total removal of labor protections, abolition of weekend vacation, social security etc are completed, but hey - they sure will get rid of those pesky socialist stuff in no time.
> It was the most capitalist thing I have ever experienced
> Government matches the amount paid, and poor people get a card that is very discounted.
How is government paying healthcare in a country that regulates prices so heavily that the cost of healthcare operations and medicine literally amount to dimes, is anything capitalist.
> The expensive places (San Francisco, Manhattan) are expensive because of government interference
There isn't any megapolis on the planet that does not have 'government interference'. That's what makes millions over millions of people in a tight place actually be able to live and work.
> In the US healthcare is regulated like crazy, entirely broken by government intervention.
Prices. You need to regulate prices. Irrelevant regulation doesn't do anything about prices.
> The nuclear arms race, space race, and missile race (the second being intimately connected to the third, and in a way its public face, at least initially) were, in fact, races
That's your interpretation. And possibly a likely noticeable segment of the public. The Kennedy administration's race is an actual, specific race with a specific plan. It cannot be 'interpreted away' like that. It was a specific decision taken with specific goals in mind. And those goals were not just 'reaching space' or 'have more nuclear bombs' like the others.
I recommend watching some relevant Chomsky lectures on the matter. He gives excruciating details of the affair.
> The nuclear arms race started immediately after WWII (or possibly during it), the space race (and associated missile race) started in the 1950s.
Those weren't races. The decision to start an arms race and space race to starve the USSR of GDP is an explicitly laid out plan in Kennedy admn.'s internal memos.
What?!
> The common law derives from the medieval !Anglosaxon! feudal law, which is based on contracts, agreements, negotiations and precedents
This is the !very first! statement of the opening paragraph of my comment. Why are you saying that I have not said it. Have you not read the actual comment?
> Why would they exist conceptually if they're not relied upon?
Why would they be relied upon if they exist, even further, why would they be the basis of the actual law?
In civil law, the law always supersedes anything else, including any agreement that any party makes among themselves. The agreements, contracts that parties makes in between themselves cannot affect the law and its decrees in any way, and actually any contract itself must be made precisely as how the law outlines them to be made and what permits them to have. To put it in historic terms, in civil law contracts exist because the law says they can exist and tells precisely how will they exist and to what extent, whereas in common law the contractual agreements that the parties made among themselves all the way going back to Magna Carta are the basis of the entire body of law - with Magna Carta being a contractual agreement in itself.
...
Also, regarding the below comment of yours:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36205790
I will respond to that comment here because HN rate limits me, making any productive discussion totally infeasible, which is why I almost totally stopped participating on this platform. Seeing how it makes actual discussions impossible, I should altogether stop participating here. But here goes the reply:
> the paper probably isn't what you were hoping for.
The term exists, its an important term in history, political science, diplomacy for a very long while, the very Cambridge university uses it itself. At this point you should be aware that even you would be able to find many references using the term. So dont sweat it. The rest of the world is not going to stop using it just because you people have a beef with some country that uses it.
...
At this point, seeing that you have claimed that I said various things I have not said and also claimed that I didnt say things that are the very first things that I said, I have no other option but to conclude that you are an insincere debater. Which concludes our discussion since I will spare both of us of a potential unproductive discussion by disengaging...